2 storey side extension to dwelling and single storey extension to rear of garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2025 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000881 1 Beyon Drive, Cam, Gloucestershire GL11 5JW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by L Newman against the decision of Stroud District Council. • The application Ref is S.25/0944/HHOLD. • The development proposed is described as a 2 storey side extension to dwelling and single storey extension to rear of garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a 2 storey side extension to dwelling and single storey extension to rear of garage at 1 Beyon Drive, Cam, Gloucestershire GL11 5JW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S.25/0944/HHOLD, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 01, 02, 04, 06, 07 Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter & Main Issue 3. The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above. In addition, the Council does not object to the single storey rear extension to the garage. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the two-storey side extension and its effect on the character and appearance of the area which is the main issue in the appeal Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is a link detached dwelling on a corner plot which appears to be original. The appeal building is close to the crest of a hill which allows glimpsed views of the settlement’s rural setting over and between dwellings. Surrounding buildings vary in their siting and positioning with some set back from the highway. Albeit they are consistent in their overall scale and outward appearance. There is a Appeal Decision 6000881 2 landscaped area to the side of the building, contributing to an open and uncluttered public realm. 5. The proposal would bring the footprint of the overall dwelling closer to Manor Avenue. It would however be stepped down from the existing ridge and back from the front elevation, appearing clearly and obviously subservient. It would result in a blank side elevation closer to the highway, but this would not be substantially different to the existing situation. There would remain a small gap between the proposal and the highway to retain a landscaped buffer. As the dwelling sits at a higher land level, there would be some loss of views of the wider landscape. These would however be largely limited to when square onto the frontage and as such would not result in visual harm or unacceptable loss of the appreciation of the settlement’s rural setting. The varied siting of dwellings along the street lend to the proposal sitting comfortably in terms of its proximity to the highway. 6. The scheme would not therefore give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would thus comply with Policies HC8 and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan 2015 which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard. Conditions 7. The standard time limit condition and reference to the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. The plans also detail the proposed materials to be used. Since they are acceptable, I have not recommended a materials condition. The Council has not set out any other conditions, and I have not deemed any others necessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. For the reasons given above, the scheme would comply with the development plan, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR